Columbia is a planned community comprising 10 self-contained villages, located in Howard County, Maryland, United States. It began with the idea that a city could enhance its residents' quality of life. Creator and developer James W. Rouse
saw the new community in terms of human values, rather than merely
economics and engineering. Opened in 1967, Columbia was intended to not
only eliminate the inconveniences of then-current subdivision design, but also eliminate racial, religious, and class segregation.
Columbia proper consists only of that territory governed by the
Columbia Association, but larger areas are included under its name by
the U.S. Postal Service and the census. These include several other communities which predate Columbia, including Simpsonville, Atholton, and in the case of the census, Clarksville. The census-designated place had a population of 99,615 in 2010,[4] making it the most populous community in Maryland after Baltimore.[5]

In other words, Columbia was supposed to be the perfect suburban space. A place which is family friendly and relatively crime free. It is a place where people move so they can raise families away from Urban problems.

In other words, this shit ain't supposed to happen in places like Columbia.

But, it does, it can happen anywhere. That's what this shooting should hit home to you, but I know that you are a little too biased to believe the bullshit you spout without criticism.

Do guns really make people safer? If that is the case, why are these incidents so common in the US, but not other developed nations? Why not let the research speak for itself rather than silence it?

It's nice to say things, but not when objective facts contradict them.

I am blatantly ripping off the title of this piece mostly because it it pure rubbish. You might have a big alteration in the US Main Stream Media "position" on the Second Amendment if they came out and said that a right to arms outside the Militia Context was pure rubbish. But, people still to the rest of the sentence want to talk about "personal gun rights".

On its face, the Second Amendment comes right out and says "A well regulated militia being necessary for the Security of the Free state". Well if its fucking necessary, then it MUST have some relevance. That's why US v. Milller (307 U.S. 174 [1939]) says:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with
that end in view.

No shit, Sherlock, the decision totally contradicts what you did. Especially if one reads the cryptic Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840) reference at the end of this paragraph from Miller:

>In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

Aymette says:

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.

Justice McReynolds taught law at Tennesse's Vanderbilt University, I am sure he was quite aware of this reference which has gotten lost in the mix. And what he is saying is that the Second Amendment's use of the phrase to keep and bear arms has a military sense, and no other.

Anyway, there is far more proof that the Second Amendment relates to an institution which is as relevant to modern US society as the direct appointment of Senators. As such, it is no bar to gun control.

Or to once again quote Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972). Reminder Justice Douglas was on the SCOTUS at the time of US v. Miller:

My views have been stated in substance by Judge Friendly, dissenting,
in the Court of Appeals. 436 F.2d 30, 35. Connecticut allows its
citizens to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, at will, provided
they have a permit. Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. 29-35, 29-38. Connecticut law
gives its police no authority to frisk a person for a permit. Yet the
arrest was for illegal possession of a gun. The only basis for that
arrest was the informer’s tip on the narcotics. Can it be said that a
man in possession of narcotics will not have a permit for his gun? Is
that why the arrest for possession of a gun in the free-and-easy State
of Connecticut becomes constitutional?The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth
Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a
pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these
gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second
Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.”There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing
the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no
reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record.
There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol
to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should
not be barred to everyone except the police.The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a
federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a
sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a
sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second
Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view
of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and
train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep
without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly
disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of
country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians
primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment.
Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted,
was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood
of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the
Fourth Amendment. I share with Judge Friendly a concern that the easy
extension of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, to “possessory offenses” is a
serious intrusion on Fourth Amendment safeguards.
“If it is to be extended to the latter at all, this should be only
where observation by the officer himself or well authenticated
information shows `that criminal activity may be afoot.’” 436 F.2d, at
39, quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 30.

“The victims are concentrated among young, poor males,” said the
report's author, Embry Howell, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.
“This is the population we’re talking about and their costs are very
high. It's one group that is heavily uninsured."

Hospitals in the U.S. spent $630 million in 2010 treating the victims of gun violence
-- everything from minor gunshot wounds to injuries that required
days-long stays -- and public funds provided most of that money. The
Medicaid costs of gun violence alone that year amounted to approximately
$327 million.

Notably, the report found that the average cost of a hospital visit
for a gun violence victim is $14,000 more than that of the average
hospital stay, due to the severity of the injuries often involved.

Although, the true economic cost of gun violence is much larger that what hospitals are spending on care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that gun violence deaths cost the U.S. economy $37 billion and gun injuries $3.7 billion in 2005, the last year the public health agency conducted an analysis. In addition, taxpayers often end up footing the bill for social services for gun violence victims, as well as building the expensive hospital trauma units needed for their treatment.

One bit of good news:

Many of the victims of gun violence who are uninsured will see their
hospital bills go down as President Obama’s health care reform law
offers more low-income Americans access to Medicaid in many states.

The Bad News:

But
because Medicaid is a government-subsidized program, Howell noted, the
cost of gun violence to taxpayers will go up.

In other words, society bears the cost of gun violence, but that's another thing I've been sayiing all along.

Friday, January 24, 2014

A sort of cross post from my blog and repost again on this blog. But, I get annoyed when people keep talking about the Second Amendment and "supporting the Second Amendment", yet any discussion of it is totally out of context. That is why I am reposting this. These are paintings from two prominent collections of US art. Instead of people carrying weapons outside the militia context, we have examples of the Muster Day, which is when the able bodied men were obligated to enroll and drill in their respective militia units.

While able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were considered members of the militia under the militia act of 1792, The annual muster day was how they accomplished the actual enrollment of the members into their units. The Militia Act stated:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment,

There's that nasty word, enrollment, which is what one needed to do to actively be a member in a militia unit. And as any person with serious knowledge of the militia system will ell you that service was compulsory.

Local companies of militia would gather annually for parade and inspection at their regiment’s muster day which often involved a thousand or more men from half a dozen towns. Food and alcohol vendors, showmen, fiddlers, auctioneers, charlatans, gamblers, and several thousand spectators turned these gatherings into regional festivals in an era of few such diversions. Muster days were structured social events in a regimental towns in ways not duplicated since. By 1830, muster days were under attack from those who resented the required participation. They were joined by temperance advocates, who objected to the considerable public drunkenness attending each muster, and later by critics of the Mexican War, who claimed that the existence of a peace-time militia had in fact led to this conflict.

“Their general good conduct on the field was creditable to officers and soldiers – with the exception of a few, (such as never know how to leave off when they have done), who fired promiscuously about the plain a long time after they had been dismissed, a practice always disreputable to good soldiers and the officers to whom they belong. the occasion attracted an unusual assemblage of spectators, pedlers, rumsellers, rumdrinkers and gamblers; whose noise, ribaldry, intoxication, and violation of the laws in the face and eyes of the authorities, was disgraceful to the place, to the occasion, to those specially engaged in it, and to all who looked on and tolerated it. We leave it to the people to judge whether there be more good than evil derived from ‘making a muster.’” –Report of the Amherst Muster Day from The Farmers’ Cabinet, 1834

Exemptions to Militia service were:

Vice President, federal judicial and executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers, custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states”notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.”

Or as the quote goes: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 (that should be quite a few public officials).

So, militia service was NOT universal. In fact, Men actively sought exemption from militia service. This was a reason for the carnival atmosphere at muster days. Again from Story:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

To be quite honest, people had jobs and other things to do than militia service and sought exemption from that duty. The muster day had a carneval feeling because it made the obligation less painful. Still there was an obligation to perform militia service. This was compulsory military duty which required time away from your work.

Now,people are demand the right without the obligation incumbent to that right.

Funny how if you go back to the good old days, you see certain concepts which purport to be conservative don't exist, e.g. a right to carry a concealed firearm or that god needs to be a part of what makes a "good American".

This date, this month, marks the one year anniversary of the epic fail, crash and burn that is Mark Kessler.

Here is the latest of his failures. Presumably he is only dragging this out because it might provide some form of benefits to himself and his family while the termination process continues. It's not like anyone is beating a path to his door to employ him in any other capacity, or likely to again, ever. Kessler has literally shot himself in the hand, and figuratively shot himself in the foot, while his foot was in his own mouth.

Kessler has conducted himself in a consistently unprofessional, unethical, inappropriate and uncivil manner that has resulted not only in his job loss, but in leaving his municipality open to law suits. How prophetic when he speaks here of taking off his uniform that he has been defrocked, as it were, as a member of law enforcement.

In the interim of this past year, Kessler has been at the center of a series of increasingly vocal, and subsequently embarrassing epic failures, each one larger than the preceding disaster he has orchestrated. He is left with nothing but his well-deserved notoriety for failure and foulness.

The conduct of Kessler is so excessively unprofessional, that it is being used as an example in law enforcement training on HOW NOT TO DO THE JOB OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Kessler is not alone among law enforcement in the incorrect interpretation of the rights and duties of law enforcement. ONLY our judicial system is permitted to rule on the legitimacy of a law or executive action. ONLY the legislative system is permitted to draft and pass legislation, which then requires the executive branch signatures to be valid, conditional on the decision of the judicial branches of government at all levels.

Anyone attempting to make their own individual determinations in law enforcement are over-reaching their authority and violating the foundational terms and conditions on which that authority is predicated. However at least the law enforcement figures below are conducting themselves in a more professional manner, although they should all still be removed from office in their respective jurisdictions for their failure to enforce the law, or executive orders, unless so directed by the judiciary.

Of course, whether it is Kessler or Arpaio, or any of the rest of these guys, the radical right need to be removed from office for their failure to conduct their respective offices in a professional and responsible manner. Here is another example of how foolish and ridiculous what these people believe:

People ask me all the time why we don't have a revolution in America, or
at least a major wave of reform similar to that of the Progressive Era
or the New Deal or the Great Society -- given that middle incomes are
sinking, the ranks of the poor are swelling, and almost all the economic
gains are going to the top. The answer is complex, but three reasons
stand out: (1) The working class is paralyzed with fear it will lose the
jobs and wages it already has, and its major vehicle
for organizing itself -- labor unions -- have been decimated; (2)
students (who have been in years past a force for social change) are
laden with debt and face a lousy jobs market, and don't want to rock the
boat; and (3) the American public has become so cynical about
government (in large part due to Republican tactics) that many no longer
believe reform is possible. Have I left anything out? Has the right
been so clever as to target unions, ensure high employment, pile on
student debt, and seed cynicism precisely to prevent such a movement for
fundamental reform? How will this end?

In case you don't know who Malala Yousafzai is, she is the young woman who was shot by the Taliban for protesting a ban on female education. She lives in the Swat District of Pakistan's northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. That is a place that has a similar attitude toward the "right to bear arms" that the gun loons profess.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Andrew Boldt, the victim of the Perdue University shooting is profiled here. The author points out:

I cannot imagine what his family is going through tonight. The shooter,
identified as 23-year-old Cody Cousins, has been arrested, but his
motives are not yet clear. Whatever the motives, this 21-year-old young
man did not deserve to die today. He probably went in to work like you
or I not suspecting a thing.

I know a lot of you feel that you could put an end to any active shooter incident, but do you really have the bottle to handle it in real life?

I should also add that most people in the US know at least one person who has been a victim of this plague. It shouldn't take too much longer before people start getting upset and actually doing something about this problem.

The US has long had a strong anti-intellectual tendency, perhaps it is due to populism. Lately, there has been a dislike of the "educated elite" and their "expertise", which somehow translates into unquestioning acceptance of things which are plain off bullshit.

In this case: creationism.

Source: National Geographic

The United States ranks 33rd in the world in acceptance in the scientific notion of evolution. Yes, 33rd! Just ahead of the Turks but behind Cyprus and Latvia. In a 2005 survey adults were asked to respond to the statement: “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” Only 40% of U.S. citizens responded, true.

In 2013 another survey asked, “Humans and other living things have evolved over time.” Only 43% of those who identified as Republicans agreed. This was down from 54% in 2009. An 11% decline in 4 years.

Among Democrats 67% answered true while 65% of Independents agreed. Pew’s researchers said party differences remained when other factors — such as the racial and ethnic composition of the political groups, and religious and educational background — were taken into account.

That's pretty bad, but it might explain why other silly beliefs have taken hold in US society.

America has become the last great colony of the gun imperialists. Like
the colonies of history, we suffer the loss while they reap the profits.
And like all imperialists, the gun imperialists prefer to rule us
indirectly, through a system of stooges, like the NRA. NSSF, and the US
Congress.

Tom's comment is an interesting observation if we consider that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against a monopoly (The British East India Company) receiving preferred treatment in the colonial system and the War for American Independence was a fight against colonialisation. In this case, colonialisation doesn't need to be political, it can be economic as well. After all, a colony is a place where its resources and wealth are stripped to enrich the colonial power.

So, instead of being a "patriot", you lot are far more supporters of the colonial system. That may be unwitting supporters, but supporters nonetheless. It also adds the irony that the AK-47 is no longer the gun of "freedom", but one which is serving to oppress your nation.

Like it or not, living under the gun usually does not mean "freedom" in most political lexicons. Instead, it denotes repression. But, the US debate around this issue is nonsensical as far as the gun rights movement is concerned. The gun rights movement twists the facts and turns them into something out of a weird dystopian novel.

The gun rights movement is not offering freedom, it is placing US society under the gun.

From the same group that one proposed gun control laws and had a president who said “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons...I do not believe in the
general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply
restricted and only under licenses.”

In 1975, the NRA published a Fact Book on Firearms Control that
endorsed “reasonable regulation” such as a “waiting period between
purchase and delivery,” recordkeeping requirements for “manufacturers,
importers, dealers and pawnbrokers,” laws that “control all machine guns
and destructive devices,” and the enforcement of “reasonable
conditions” for those “wishing to carry a concealed firearm.”

This is from the film "(Astro)Turf Wars". It shows a training session for how to sabotage the dialogue and "control the debate".

But one of the first lessons in anti-propaganda tactics is to learn how people practise it and be able to spot it. Then, you can say "that is propaganda and not really worth paying attention to". Additionally, you can use critical thinking skills to spot the flaws in their arguments.

In this case, the trick is called "stacking the deck" or "card staking" where one emphasises on argument while eliminating another.

But, the next time you see a book with polarised reviews, you can be aware that it has probably been hit by this tactic.

As with anything the gun lobby says, I wouldn't buy it. My guess is
that there is a problem.

But, there is also a problem with "stolen" guns from what I was told
when I asked ATF about that topic. The BATFE agent I worked with at
USAO-DC said that most traffickers will say the guns were stolen
when asked.

The bottom line is that until there is some real accurate
information out there, the debate will never really reflect the
reality for either side.

In other words, at this point there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence there may be a problem with having your car broken into if you parade your "pro-gun" stance. I would also toss in that most "crime guns" are allegedly stolen per the above conversation with BATFE. Also, there was more proof that guns in the home were detrimental to family safety, which was why federal gun violence research funding was ended.

Personally,I do not believe a firearm is the best choice, or even a realistic option, for any form of defence.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

OK, I know it might scare the shit out of the locals, but this would be the perfect place to reenact D-Day. I mean if you want to keep your living history "real", then do it somewhere realistic instead of someplace on lake Erie.

This video uses examples to illustrate why in most cases, "good guys
with guns" are not going to save lives...they are going to take them.
Yes, there are always a few contrary examples, but by and large, most
ordinary people are going to freeze, react so badly they get shot
themselves without affecting the outcome, or shoot the wrong person.

This video is not aimed at changing the mind of people who won't face
facts. That's hopeless. It's intended to educate activists and to
confirm the instincts of most ordinary Americans that more guns is a bad
idea.

You should be proud at the level of carnage in the US since that it how your "Second Amendment Right" is expressed (mine would be that you all get to do drill and spend time on a military base). Anyway, someone said the number of school shootings is around 35, but that is only what gets reported in the news.

BTW, I know people text their families and friends during active shooter incidents, but that as this points out--that doesn't fit your idea of how these incidents go down.

This is Andrew Boldt who was a senior in electrical engineering at Perdue University. Andrew was from West Bend, WI and graduated from Marquette High School.

Hardly a gang banger or other person that you lot deem worthy of death, yet he was one of the many thousands killed or wounded by firearms in the United States.

Remember that even "shefearsnothing" was killed by her husband using a gun. Not to mention the judge who restored her concealed-weapon permit last year
questioned her judgment and said she had "scared the devil" out of
other parents at the soccer field.

The ultimate upshot is that the more people who die or are effected from senseless gun violence, the more it hurts your position. It can happen to you whether you own a gun or not. In fact, having a gun makes it far more likely it will happen to you.

Unless they are idiots like you, but the good news is that you are more likely to die from your own weapon than use it on someone else.

In other words, you are a dying breed.

I should also add that this is not "dancing on the graves of the victims"--it's putting a face to the numbers and statistics. Another thing you lot don't like as it is easier to blow this off if you believe all the people who are victimised by this plague are "criminals or gang bangers" rather than a nice guy or one of your own.

It pisses you off when you realise that you are wrong and you have to lash out at everything else besides your bullshit, antisocial beliefs.

Not sure if I can actually call Julian Lennon "my homey"--especially after my "pony" comments to him (pony is British slang for £25) and his reaction to it. Then again, I admit that I am an honourary Northerner--not a real one.
And pony is cockney slang. But that is a serious "anyway".

Andrew Anglemyer and colleagues at the University of California, San
Francisco, trolled through studies that had already been done to see if
they could clarify the association between gun ownership and violent
death. They found 14 studies that found the odds of suicide went up by
anywhere from 1.5 times to 10-fold if people had access to guns. Experts
say this is partly because guns are far deadlier than other suicide
methods, such as taking pills, which may not succeed.

Studies
looking at homicide found that if people had access to guns, they were
two to three times more likely to be killed themselves.

“Firearms cause an estimated 31,000 deaths
annually in the United States,” they wrote in their report, published
in the Annals of Internal Medicine. “Data from the 16-state National
Violent Death Reporting System indicate that 51.8 percent of deaths from
suicide in 2009 were firearm-related; among homicide victims, 66.5
percent were firearm-related.”

Nevermind, the "pro-gun" forces will just have to make sure reliable studies are not funded.

After all, the truth is "anti-gun".

The best part of this article:

“Obtaining a firearm not only endangers those living in the home but also imposes substantial costs on the community.”

"I'm sure this will be another teachable moment through which we will
reassess our nation's insane attraction to its firearms and agree that
there is some sensible middle ground between grabbing da gunz and having
the freedom to get ventilated over the arugula. That will last 11
seconds, and then someone will auction off another rifle to honor Doctor
King and we will all have liberty again." - Charlie Pierce

Maybe some of the people in the US who claim to be Christian need to reexamine these principles.

From the Anglican Parish of Gosford, New South Wales, Australia

Weekend Reflection.

No matter what you think about Christianity it’s hard to deny some
basic facts about Jesus. Born sometime between 4BCE and 6CE into a
peasant family. He grew up in the socio political context of an
oppressive foreign occupation and corrupt local “government”. Sometime
around the age of 30 he explicitly challenged the local authorities and
therefore the might of Rome. He was arrested, tried, convicted of
sedition and executed.

I do not believe it is possible to
genuinely claim to be his follower unless you share his passion for the
poor, the oppressed and the voiceless. Supporting the oppression of
another human being for any reason requires a form of justification that
is unacceptable to his spirit.

Standing for those in need is Christianity, any addition to that, as worthy as it may be is simply window dressing.

Fr Rod Bower.

By the way, if we are going to add the "thous shall not kill" and "sacredness of human life", we can add:

Thou shalt not kill. Here again is a moral
precept included in all codes, and placed by all in a prominent
position. Our first duty towards our neighbour is to respect his life.
When Cain slew Abel, he could scarcely have known what he was doing; yet
a terrible punishment was awarded him for his transgression (Genesis 4:11-14). After the flood, the solemn declaration was made, which thenceforward
became a universal law among mankind - "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9:6).

Still, this doesn't stop people from claiming to be Christian while devaluing human life. In the few places where there is an organised government, and a
systematic administration of justice, the State acts on the principle
and punishes the murderer. Elsewhere, among tribes and races
which had not vet coalesced into states, the law of blood-revenge
obtained, and the inquisition for blood became a private affair. The
next of kin was the recognised" avenger "upon whom it devolved to hunt
out the murderer and punish him.

Exceptions appear to the rule appear later on (Numbers 35:22-25; Deuteronomy 4:42;
etc.); but the first thing is to establish the principle that human life is
sacred. Man is not to shed the blood of his fellow-man unless it is absolutely necessary. In other words, the Bible supports the traditional, common law version of the doctrine of self-defence where deadly force the the LAST option, not the first and only to be used if all other options have been exhausted.